I care about important things, how terrible of me.
Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...
Advertisement
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:57 pm
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:58 pm
San Lumen wrote:Northern Davincia wrote:Telconi cares about basic rights, go figure.
And they have also called for the peaceful transfer of power to not be respected, believe there is some mass conspiracy against them and that the majority of his state are awful people for the simply fact people have the audacity to disagree with him
by San Lumen » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:59 pm
by Northern Davincia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:01 pm
San Lumen wrote:Telconi wrote:
I care about important things, how terrible of me.
Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...
Its the single thing you believe is important
How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:01 pm
San Lumen wrote:Telconi wrote:
I care about important things, how terrible of me.
Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...
Its the single thing you believe is important
How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?
by San Lumen » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:03 pm
Telconi wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Its the single thing you believe is important
How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?
That's not true, and you know it, or should.
Because there are many more important things at stake than roads, if my child grows up to a world with broken pavement or potholes, it will be a far better life than if she grows up into the future you want.
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:03 pm
Northern Davincia wrote:San Lumen wrote:
Its the single thing you believe is important
How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?
People who lived in Africa and India long ago realized that it's better to live free than to have nice things from outside control.
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:05 pm
San Lumen wrote:Telconi wrote:
That's not true, and you know it, or should.
Because there are many more important things at stake than roads, if my child grows up to a world with broken pavement or potholes, it will be a far better life than if she grows up into the future you want.
Well then dont blame the state when they have a car accident because the road wasn't fixed.
What is this future I want?
by Doing it Rightland » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:34 pm
San Lumen wrote:I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well
San Lumen wrote:Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice
San Lumen wrote:In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?
San Lumen wrote:How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:35 pm
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:42 pm
by Northern Davincia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:23 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by San Lumen » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:16 pm
Doing it Rightland wrote:San Lumen wrote:I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well
My goal is to cut that out. I don't think having urban legislators making policies for rural areas and vice versa makes a lot of sense. Let rural counties do rural things, and urban counties do their things, but don't burden urban legislators with rural policies and vice versa unless there's a problem.San Lumen wrote:Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice
Yeah,it is true that rural counties tend to not have the infrastructure to effectively generate revenue. At the state level, urban taxes subsidize rural budgets. That's where what little of the state government I'd keep comes in. They collect their state taxes and distribute it out. Yeah, there we'd potentially run into some issues. However, as I see it, so long as each county submits a budget, and the total pool of state funds gets divided proportionately between the counties, everybody gets money they need.
At the federal level, the situation is actually a bit different. Most federal development funding goes to cities, so rural areas tend to not have as much funding in that sense.San Lumen wrote:In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?
I'm not suggesting cutting state taxes, unless of course the counties were able to tax more. Where I live, the state's main source of revenue is property and sales tax. Either the state would continue to tax that stuff, and simply divide out the funds proportionately according to each county's needs, or the counties take over taxes and handle it on their own.
And about the MTA. If the urban counties are subsidizing rural ones, then why would giving the funding power to counties cause problems. If anything, there should be more money in the cities (since less is leaving to rural communities) and thus the budget problems would be less severe if still sustained.San Lumen wrote:How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?
Trains. Europe and Asia do it just fine. Increase the amount of rails, put tolls on highways to raise money for this, and you have more functionality. Or the state continues to tax and pays to build it. Or the counties pay for it.
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:25 pm
San Lumen wrote:Doing it Rightland wrote:My goal is to cut that out. I don't think having urban legislators making policies for rural areas and vice versa makes a lot of sense. Let rural counties do rural things, and urban counties do their things, but don't burden urban legislators with rural policies and vice versa unless there's a problem.
Yeah,it is true that rural counties tend to not have the infrastructure to effectively generate revenue. At the state level, urban taxes subsidize rural budgets. That's where what little of the state government I'd keep comes in. They collect their state taxes and distribute it out. Yeah, there we'd potentially run into some issues. However, as I see it, so long as each county submits a budget, and the total pool of state funds gets divided proportionately between the counties, everybody gets money they need.
At the federal level, the situation is actually a bit different. Most federal development funding goes to cities, so rural areas tend to not have as much funding in that sense.
I'm not suggesting cutting state taxes, unless of course the counties were able to tax more. Where I live, the state's main source of revenue is property and sales tax. Either the state would continue to tax that stuff, and simply divide out the funds proportionately according to each county's needs, or the counties take over taxes and handle it on their own.
And about the MTA. If the urban counties are subsidizing rural ones, then why would giving the funding power to counties cause problems. If anything, there should be more money in the cities (since less is leaving to rural communities) and thus the budget problems would be less severe if still sustained.
Trains. Europe and Asia do it just fine. Increase the amount of rails, put tolls on highways to raise money for this, and you have more functionality. Or the state continues to tax and pays to build it. Or the counties pay for it.
You clearly do not understand how budgets work. A lawmaker from a rural county advocates for what they need and the same goes for one from a urban area. The budget is put together with input from everyone. Dividing funds out based on need is whats already done.
Plus you can't simply have all the counties just raise taxes. In some rural counties its simply not feasible.Telconi wrote:
I never argued that.
You have called the majority of your state terrible people for voting opposite to you
by San Lumen » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:26 pm
Telconi wrote:San Lumen wrote:
You clearly do not understand how budgets work. A lawmaker from a rural county advocates for what they need and the same goes for one from a urban area. The budget is put together with input from everyone. Dividing funds out based on need is whats already done.
Plus you can't simply have all the counties just raise taxes. In some rural counties its simply not feasible.
You have called the majority of your state terrible people for voting opposite to you
Just because someone has the right to vote, doesn't mean their use of that right is respectable.
by Ors Might » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:27 pm
by Ors Might » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:29 pm
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:29 pm
by San Lumen » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:33 pm
by Ors Might » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:34 pm
San Lumen wrote:Ors Might wrote:And that means you have to respect how they use that right?
Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.Telconi wrote:
If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...
And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:36 pm
San Lumen wrote:Ors Might wrote:And that means you have to respect how they use that right?
Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.Telconi wrote:
If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...
And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.
by Telconi » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:38 pm
Ors Might wrote:San Lumen wrote:Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.
And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.
If someone votes for a fucking Nazi, I have zero respect for their vote. They have every right to cast that vote but the person themselves can get bent.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bogestan, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Hirota, Ifreann, Infected Mushroom, Likhinia, Republics of the Solar Union, Singaporen Empire, Tiami, Tungstan
Advertisement